I think the Homefront marketers were geniuses. that game sold over a million, and that's nothing to sneeze at. I suspect they knew that game was a pile and decided that they'd sunk so much money into it that they'd have to make us think we should all own it. Ergo - successful game. (if terrible)

THQ certainly played it that way; they have a recurring strategy of sinking assloads of marekting into games to see if they can create the 'next big thing'.

The Homefront developers were all fired, so THQ certainly knows it sucked - but they also know it would have failed even more if their marketing blitz hadn't pushed it so hard.

And seriously the idea that bikers wouldn't watch a show about fat beardos who like bikes talking shit at each other is so divorced from reality it's fantastic. Why could they possibly watch it? Arguments? NOT IN MY LOCAL MC!!

A combination of over ambition and limited resources really doomed both those products from the start. While mod developers do tend to be ambitious, they can usually afford to be because of low overhead costs. This attitude does not translate well into a high risk market however. While mainstream developers sometimes become ambitious themselves and should be encouraged to evolve game design, they usually have the resources to take a few hits too.

Everygame has marketing, even ones made by basement developers. It is rare to see a game that does not have any effort devoted to marketing.

...

The most important tools of the marketeer are the gaming press and word of mouth.

Mr Bean's avatar is from a game that had, and still has had, no official marketing. It came out on Steam without fanfare and it built up sales purely on word of mouth and positive reviews. And it's sold over 100,000 copies.

Certainly an anomaly rather than the norm, but it's worth noting exceptions.

Joined: 2002-12-24 08:29amPosts: 10681Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense

DPDarkPrimus wrote:

Sarevok wrote:

Everygame has marketing, even ones made by basement developers. It is rare to see a game that does not have any effort devoted to marketing.

...

The most important tools of the marketeer are the gaming press and word of mouth.

Mr Bean's avatar is from a game that had, and still has had, no official marketing. It came out on Steam without fanfare and it built up sales purely on word of mouth and positive reviews. And it's sold over 100,000 copies.

Certainly an anomaly rather than the norm, but it's worth noting exceptions.

I would attribute Recetears success to being on Steam. Steam likes to pick a game, publicize the heck out of it and sit on top of a huge pile of money. They really are more of a publisher than a mere digital distribution website. Very few games are accepted by Steam and for indie developers it is a dream come to true to actually achieve that feat. The sad thing is that this is hurting smaller developers, independent PC games that do not get included on Steam find it very hard to make a profit.

I would attribute Recetears success to being on Steam. Steam likes to pick a game, publicize the heck out of it and sit on top of a huge pile of money. They really are more of a publisher than a mere digital distribution website. Very few games are accepted by Steam and for indie developers it is a dream come to true to actually achieve that feat. The sad thing is that this is hurting smaller developers, independent PC games that do not get included on Steam find it very hard to make a profit.

Is Steam the problem, or a scapegoat? Right now, I hear about indie games through Steam and word of mouth, before Steam is was just word of mouth.

I would attribute Recetears success to being on Steam. Steam likes to pick a game, publicize the heck out of it and sit on top of a huge pile of money. They really are more of a publisher than a mere digital distribution website. Very few games are accepted by Steam and for indie developers it is a dream come to true to actually achieve that feat. The sad thing is that this is hurting smaller developers, independent PC games that do not get included on Steam find it very hard to make a profit.

Are you serious Sarevok? A quick check of Steam shows 266 games in the "Indie" category and over three hundred listed developers on the Steam Dev page, the big guys are up there like Bethesda or Capcom but I've never heard of Secret Base Studios but they have a game on Steam (Only one) or Streum On Studio who's in the same boat. Is it easy to release a game on Steam? No, but it's not exactly impossible.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom WolfePardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

Joined: 2002-12-24 08:29amPosts: 10681Location: The Covenants last and final line of defense

Bean Steam is more complicated than most people realize. Consider the game Evochron Mercenary. It is a highly polished title which proved quite popular amongst those who played X3,Freelancer etc. The company TRIED HARD to get their game on Steam. You know what happened ? The only response they received was no. There was no reason given whatsoever. They were lucky to get a response because Steam has a reputation for not answering emails.

Now you might say that despite this there are still hundreds of indie games on steam. That is true but have you realized many of them are simplistic flash games like VVVVV! ? This why some developers are frustrated with Steam. They have no clear selection procedure on WHAT they want. Steam seems to pick whatever is the current fad on the internet and publicize the heck out of it. Case in point, Terraria, that game used Final Fantasy sprites ! Most companies would not even touch an incomplete game using assets from another game. This is the reason why some developers can't rely on Steam. Unlike other outlets such as gamersgate or direct2drive Steam has no clear requirements for developers to follow. Such nebulous rules are ok I guess for people who develop games for fun but not a comforting thought for professional developers .

What is going to be a laugh for me will be the fight between Steam and Origin. I think that EA has already lost the battle because Steam is a platform now. If a PC game isn't on Steam then I'm significantly less likely to play it as being a console baby has made me resent patching, third party matchmaking, chat and all that BS.

EAs value proposition and incentives for Origin would have to be off the scale to make people switch rather than just put a shortcut in Steam.

Should EA lose the battle though? They withdrew Crysis 2 and their other titles from Steam because Valve was basically trying to tell developers what to do with their own products. Which honestly sounds pretty selfish.

EA may not be the cleanest company in the industry but they've certainly tried improving their image and product quality over the last few years.

Oh there's no question that Valve have begun drinking the "platform holder" kool aid,but EA has to be mad to try and go toe to toe with them if they don't have more to Origin than just a launcher and overpriced store.

Should EA lose the battle though? They withdrew Crysis 2 and their other titles from Steam because Valve was basically trying to tell developers what to do with their own products. Which honestly sounds pretty selfish.

EA may not be the cleanest company in the industry but they've certainly tried improving their image and product quality over the last few years.

I haven't heard anything about what Valve was doing. Do you have anything more on that?

Though none of them elaborate what the specifics of these rules were. Conservatives on the internet (nerds of course!) are all whining it's a move on EA's part to push Origin but I fail to understand how that's illogical or corporate evil or something.

You either have your game and all DLC's on Steam (Buy able via Steam) or your game is not on Steam. EA has started making some of it's DLC online only and the only way to buy it is via Origin (Or sometimes Origin AND Gamestop in game store purchases). They are trying to push Origin on people which is dumb because Origin sucks all around, it's a glorified Download helper with pretty graphics front end. It offers no new features that Steam does not, nor does it offer anything comparable to what Steam already does.

"A cult is a religion with no political power." -Tom WolfePardon me for sounding like a dick, but I'm playing the tiniest violin in the world right now-Dalton

Thanks but that's not the point? If Origin sucks from a technical standpoint that's too bad but it does nothing to explain why it's evil or something for EA to want to pursue their own download service. Especially when Valve treats other people's products like their own.

I mean what Valve is doing is honestly pretty monopolistic. "You can only use our DD service or you get the boot."

It's clearly about maintaining marketshare and preventing anyone from giving preferential treatment to anyone but steam, not 'customer experience'. I'd love to see this applied to store-based preorder bonuses.

If EA sold 360 DLC through EA.com, they'd never sell any because consoles don't have a browser. Do you honestly think a closed platform is comparable to an open marketplace where the biggest retailer leans on publishers to ensure nobody else can get an edge?

Steam 'fans' are funny as hell. If only everyone ran their supply chains like Valve!

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum